If you say anything negative about the religion or its teachings, you are kicked out.
Really? Citation please; I simply don't believe this. Most Christian universities that I have any knowledge of invite (or at least aren't averse to it) tough discussion, and allow for a pretty wide range of critical thought about interpretations of the Bible, how Christianity should relate to politics, culture, science, and many other subjects.
Until a few years ago, you could major in something that amounted to being a 'preacher's wife' (I can't remember the name of the major, but that was its goal).
And this is evidence of what, exactly?
"Safe-spaces", on the other hand, are cudgels of fear, handed to anyone claiming "victimization" to be capriciously used against people with whom they simply disagree and want to shut up. The reason they're even a thing is because school administrators themselves are beholden to the same fear. That's not at all like free association.
Harassment, of course, is something different and malicious and should be confronted uncovered and called out, but simple discourse, antagonistic as may be, is something humans should learn how to engage with with relative ease, rather than recoil and become less able to deal with the realities of living in a complex and undanitized society.
You have missed out on the wave of evangelical schools that market to parents as babysitters. Here are some quotes from the OKWU student handbook:
http://www.okwu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/2013-2014-Stu...
> Students should understand that all traffic on the Internet on campus is capable of being viewed, monitored, and logged by OKWU
View porn and you can be expelled. Might not want to search for birth control either.
> Possession or use of alcohol on or off campus, contributing to the use of alcohol by other OKWU students, and/or being present in an environment where alcohol is being consumed is prohibited. Use, possession, purchasing, etc. of tobacco is prohibited.
Note the on or OFF campus bit. This is where the evangelical babysitting really kicks in.
> By virtue of their voluntary enrollment, all students, regardless of age, residency, or status agree to engage in sexual behavior exclusively within the context of marital heterosexual monogamy.
> Gambling, pornography, immodesty, profanity, crude, vulgar, or offensive language, and disrespectful behavior, such as gossip, dishonesty, and malice are also viewed as inappropriate behavior for all students. The University supports the stance of The Wesleyan Church on the issue of dancing.
However, the school's official rules tell students they should not engage in, "profanity, crude, vulgar, or offensive language, and disrespectful behavior [including] gossip, dishonesty, and malice." The school has a right to define behavior requirements for the student body (all of whom are adults who can choose to attend or not). However, if they are going to post an attack on a student who wishes to expand the speech restrictions on campus, it seems reasonable for them to explain why the student's ideas about restricting speech are bad and their ideas are good.
In a more general sense - most people agree there should be some limits on speech (fire in a theatre, etc). However, when someone suggests a limit on speech they don't like the reaction is like the one in the article: shocked disbelief that someone would want to restrict speech! I don't have strong feelings about "safe spaces" and the like, but I don't think the idea is that strange or hard to understand and that people should at least talk about it within our never-ending discussion about how we want to live with each other.
A christian extremist complains about a student who had complained about a sermon, and says that viewpoints need to be challenged. It's useful to see if that extremist is a massive hypocrite or not. In this case it seems he is.
No dancing guys and gals, it encourages the encroachment of evil upon the home.
The purpose of safe spaces isn't to impose thought control, it's to allow people who have suffered a chance to recover. You can choose to enter one, or you can choose to stay out of one. It's purely a matter of free association. (Perhaps you're thinking of "speech codes"? I agree in opposing those, but it's a separate issue.) A safe space is nothing more than a "free and voluntary association of like-minded people."
I'd point out, though, that even if a handful of people have been using the idea of "safe spaces" wrongly, that doesn't delegitimize the concept itself. If a few students are doing wrong in the name of "safe spaces," the answer is to argue against those particular students, not against other, unrelated safe spaces.
I linked this above, but since you asked:
https://popehat.com/2015/11/09/safe-spaces-as-shield-safe-sp...
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/how-camp...
Are college students, the supposed vanguard of curious minds, closing their minds and reducing their ability to deal with the world they live in?
As for your second question, it's so obviously disconnected from what has been said so far that it's hardly worth even answering. A victim of homophobic intimidation who wants a space free of homophobic intimidation is not "reducing their ability to deal with the world they live in." You're stringing right-wing jargon terms together in ways that obviously don't make sense. A person doesn't have any less of a "curious mind" simply because they want to spend time in a place free of intimidation, violence, or hostility.
What is intimidation in your example? You are projecting a generalized concept that does not have a defined impact on a person. Is it intimidation if someone posts a comment on a website that they are for male/female marriage only, a person yells out a slur on the street, a person walks up to another and says: "We do not like your kind here?" The last item on this list should be the one that a state agency involves itself in as it is the only where physical harm can occur. The others are simply words.
As an aside, in future discussions, try not to resort to simplistic arguments like "right-wing jargon terms" to dismiss an alternative view point. I was worried for a moment you may have a point until I read that.
The story in the article is more like if there were a meeting of comic book lovers and someone comes in and says "your love of comic books is offensive and victimizes me because I don't love comic books, you need to stop right away" and then pulls the fire alarm.
Having a private place where certain views are protected is fine. My house is a 'safe space' for my family. But to voluntarily enter my house and then tell me I'm victimizing you is just silly.
Oh please. Now who's fear-cudgeling whom? You're being extremely melodramatic in reaction to a questionable anecdote.
People modeling victim behaviors to remove everything that causes them discomfort aren't something to be afraid of, but also their cries for attention aren't something to be treated too seriously. Allowing them to get their way just reinforces further learning of this silly strategy.
I try to explain that a) most people have little reason to feel consistently victimized, besides just a bad habit and b) this way of communicating isn't really productive.
http://prospect.org/article/report-bob-jones-university-resp...
>There were other systemic problems in BJU’s counseling program. The same staff in charge of counseling were also often involved in BJU’s disciplinary infrastructure—in a school where students could get in significant trouble for an astonishing array of infractions, from not keeping their rooms clean enough to going off campus without permission. Students routinely were expelled without notice.
>In an uneasy mix of roles, Jim Berg served as both the head counselor and head disciplinarian. But the problem was broader than his particular purview, as victims described an environment where they were afraid to come forward to get help after being raped, because they feared being punished for breaking another rule during their attack. One student who was struggling with the revelation of her childhood abuse told GRACE she was placed on disciplinary counseling after she was caught smoking cigarettes, and Chancellor Bob Jones III attempted to impose an even harsher sentence of restricting her to campus for a semester.
>Particularly harrowing was the experience of a student who alleged that her pastor had been raping her since she was 15, and who came to BJU officials when she became pregnant as a result of ongoing coercive sex with the pastor. But because she had lied about going off campus to meet him, BJU kicked her out of school.
>BJU officials defended its comingling of counseling and discipline as something that made sense within the school’s enduring adherence to the practice of in loco parentis— the quasi-parental role that most colleges abandoned fifty years ago—but students described its effect as both chilling and retaliatory.
Now if you want to argue about how narrow blinkers need to be before a horse is blind then your just missing the point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinkers_(horse_tack)
A "safe space" is a place where you know you aren't going to be singled out and harmed (verbally or physically) by someone telling you that you're a queer faggot and deserve to die.
A "safe space" is a place where people can discuss the actual issues of hatred, bigotry and violence without fear of reprise for being the hated, the attacked, the marginalized.
There's a stark difference between "This isn't a place for saying hurtful things; this is a place for talking about why saying those things are hurtful. That's why we're not letting you in here while you continue to marginalize the oppressed. Let's talk about why you think the oppressed should be marginalized instead."
All the anti-safe-space discussion on Hacker News lately is truly, horribly, fucking disgustingly indicative of the inherent sexism and flat-out hatred that worms its way through developer culture.
They are absofuckinglutely not cudgels of fear. And people who claim they are need to take a real fucking hard look at themselves and their views on those who are verbally bullied, physically attacked, raped, and murdered for being who they fucking are.
That said, the term "safe space" is something I've never personally encountered being used in the context you present it in. When a group of like-minded people come together in a private space, they don't then declare "This place is a safe space for $x people". It's obvious that everyone present is of like-mind, and those who are there for purposes other than discussion of the topic at hand can be expelled through social means as a consensus action of the group without any need for authority involvement.
Meanwhile, I often hear the term "safe space" used by people when they want to take over a shared space to insulate themselves from people who might disagree with them or maybe even be bigots towards them, while in public. I am not in any way arguing that bigotry is socially acceptable, but it is protected speech, and while it is perfectly appropriate to tell people that their bigotry is offensive, inappropriate, and unwelcome, it's not appropriate to ask that an authority come in and forcibly establish a zone in a shared space where-in some speech is okay and other speech is not.
My opinion, which I think is largely in-line with the person you replied to, is not one born out of hatred or bigotry, it's born out of concern about the death of dissent. It's a concern that our culture is shifting to one where everyone lives in an echo chamber and is intolerant of any ideas not of their own making. It is perfectly acceptable as a society to be intolerant of intolerance, and that includes both intolerance based in bigotry as well as intolerance based in delusion. This is not an argument in favor of people "just taking it" when others behave in inappropriate ways towards them, but it is a plea for reason around dissent. Respectful disagreement is not offensive or inappropriate, even though some people may use disrespectful terms in their dissent which themselves are offensive or inappropriate, that does not mean that all people who disagree are inherently offensive. It is not oppression to disagree with someone, it is oppression to prevent dissenting opinions.
Given that so much of the influence and respect people in the public eye have these days is based on the appearance that they're socially/politically appropriate, it's very clear how claims of victimhood can be used to intimidate. In some cases, I don't have much sympathy for those who have come under fire since they are in a position to clearly state their position and walk away relatively unscathed, but some people unfortunately are not in that situation. Take for instance, the two Yale professors who clearly argued for school administrators to allow students to define their own standards and for students to have a discussion, instead were reviled unfairly by some students who instead want administrators to use their authority to impose speech controls. Unfortunately, those Yale professors have less influence with which to save themselves than the administrators who more often come under fire.
Perhaps the most confusing thing to me about this whole situation is that in most cases the people calling for "safe spaces" are people who are part of marginalized groups or are saying that they act on behalf of marginalized groups. The social concepts surrounding free association, free speech, and dissent are there to protect marginalized groups. It allows them to exist, gather, and discuss their ideas, thoughts, experiences, and feelings and to publicly disagree with people who are in the majority groups and be protected from the oppression of being silenced by authority while doing so. It seems strange to me that the people claiming to be proponents of marginalized groups would want to take away these protections from anyone.
I could write more, but I don't think it would lend anything else to the point I'm trying to make. If anyone reading this is unable to understand the difference between free association of like-minded people in private spaces vs trying to enforce speech controls on everyone, including those who may not be like-minded, in a shared space, and why the latter might be concerning to many for reasons that do not originate from any personal hatred or bigotry, I will attempt to clarify further. Otherwise, I hope the above is well-stated enough to put forward that position.
thank you for the articulate reply.
How do you feel about your HR department and their anti-discrimination and harassment policies? :)
You get more protections from harassment in the workplace than students get on campus.
Tolerance of intolerance (e.g., hate speech) leads inevitability to the extinction of tolerance itself. Discussions on why intolerance exists and what can be done to combat it are precisely why safe spaces exist. And yes, I believe university campuses should be exclusively safe places. Hate speech itself has no place in an institute of education - just as it has no place in the workplace. Discussions about hate speech, on the other hand, absolutely do.
I would argue that this is an unverified and overblown statement. In fact, I don't even see why this would eventually lead itself to be true, unless you already consider bigotry and hatred to be the majority norm in a very pervasive sense. I could write more on the matter, but others have done some considerable study on the matter [1]. I would say that overall being tolerant of intolerance is a good thing, because these people naturally exclude themselves from social structures and circles of power where they are expected to maintain a leadership role towards those they are bigoted against. Further, by integrating intolerant people with those of us who are tolerant, there is more chance for them to learn why their hatred may be misplaced, and for us to learn where the boundaries of our own personal expression should be.
Thinking merely that we must "stamp out all hatred" is in fact a form of hatred in itself. You can't fight fire with fire here.
[1] http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/23/how-marcuse-made-toda...
-Tom Lehrer, Intro to National Brotherhood Week
http://www.last.fm/music/Tom+Lehrer/That+Was+The+Year+That+W...
A university and a office are two very distinct environments. University is designed to create an environment for learning, growing, debating, being challenged in ones preconceived notions, and in some ways, it's also a crucible to help prepare young adults to enter society as productive members.
To apply the same standards of a workplace to an academic institution is ridiculous. In fact, in many ways we want workplaces to become more like university. It's another example of the friction and the push back against efforts to sterilize the workplace (trying to prevent it becoming the next "safe space").
Personally, I'm not sure I'd support anyone harassing another personally, although if speech isn't intimidating to a person, you can't say it's harassment, I think (IANAL).
Nobody's saying that we should turn main street of podunk, OH into a designated safe place (though, it says a lot about the culture in america that it is decidedly NOT a safe place to be if you're LGBTQ/POC/etc).
Bigotry is a belief structure. Discrimination and harassment are actions, which may or may not be based in bigotry. I am in no way advocating that it is okay to discriminate against or harass people based on their identity. Speech can be an action, but it can also just be speech. It's not a simple line, but I think it's well defined in the law and well understood in society the difference between a statement of opinion, which may or may not be bigoted, and harassment.
Also, I'd like to point out that you're awfully focused on my statements around bigotry. Bigotry is a consequence of humanity, but it's also something that can be changed through education and discussion. The very reason why it's important to protect dissenting speech, is because it's a protection for society against bigotry. The movement that's currently happening around "safe spaces" is not merely a reaction to bigotry, it's also a reaction to dissenting opinions, ignoring the latter for the former because the former makes an easy target to argue against due to its inappropriateness and unpopularity does not change the facts of the matter.
I think part of our misunderstanding is that we disagree on what is entailed in a "discussion" and what is entailed in the term "safe space". To me, a discussion must have, among other things, diversity of thought or position. This implies that there will be dissent. In the usage of the term "safe space" that I've experienced, dissent was not allowed, in fact it was in some cases violently rejected. If there is no room for dissent, then what exists within is not a discussion, it's a group affirmation. You do not walk away from a group affirmation having learned anything, although it might make you feel better about yourself. A discussion provides the possibility of learning something, gaining awareness of other viewpoints, understanding of someone who is different than you, and perhaps the possibility of convincing someone else to change their viewpoint to share yours.
On a university campus in a shared space, I'd very much hope that any discussion that occurs about any topic, but especially topics of politics and social mores has room for dissent. For instance, I'd hope that my dissenting opinion regarding the existence or establishment of "safe spaces" would be welcome, if not applauded in a discussion about identity politics on a university campus. At the same time, if I were on said campus and I heard someone expressing a grossly bigoted opinion, such as something which is blatantly racist or sexist, I would confront them and provide them my dissenting viewpoint to their bigotry and hope that it were welcomed, if not embraced by the person who I was having the disagreement with. University life is supposed to be about having your viewpoints that you grew up with challenged, meeting new people who are different than you, finding out about the vast diversity of opinions and thought that exists in the world, and opening your mind to the possibilities that life holds. When we use social means to censure people and demand the cessation of dissent in the name of not causing offense, we trade away the possibility of teaching students about the vast possibilities of the world in favor of not rocking the boat.
The concept of safe spaces originally came out of the societal intersection of the LGBT, Riot grrrl and 3rd wave feminist movements of the late 80's/early 90's, where there was an existential threat of violence and intimidation from opponents/bigots/homophobes/just dicks.
As you say, vital for those movements and the people in them at the time.
Where the threat is not of violence and intimidation, but rather of hurt feelings due to encountering someone with different political or religious views from you, I think it's better for society as a whole for those feelings to get hurt; or preferably some spirited and hopefully non-intentionally inflammatory discourse to occur between people of opposing views so that we can better understand each other and progress as a society.
I'm not saying that safe spaces are not needed any more, just that they seem to be increasingly used where they are not necessary.
FWIW, this concept of safe space isn't quite what I had in mind. I think, perhaps, what I failed to articulate is that the safe space concept that grinds my gears is the kind that is an expectation carried around by people who really do just want to shut other up. Professor said something they didn't like? "Waaah...this classroom isn't a safe space". Group-I'm-not-a-part-of says something they don't like? "Waaah...they're making my school a not-safe place".
I have no problem with the idea of a physically-located place with heightened expectations of civility.
One thing to realize, also, is the context of love (as the topic of discussion in the classroom was in 1 Corinthians 13) in many evangelical circles.
Love, defined in many conservative christian circles, is devotion to the Church, the Husband and God, to the exclusion of all else. Even when it hurts. It's about staying in an abusive relationship because you need to submit to your husband's wishes, no matter what. It is not the selfless emotional connection of one person to another. It is the subjugation of the self.
This student may very well have felt victimized for how love was being talked about. But all we know about the classroom discussion was that the topic was 1 Corinthians 13. Not what was actually talked about with regard to that chapter. I've heard 1 Corinthians 13 be twisted in some very evil ways.
Please do not read any tone into what I'm saying here, because if you've gotten that message I honestly don't know how. "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another." - John 13:34
The verse you reference above is in the context of marriage and you hear it a lot at weddings, but the context of love within Christian community is always going to go straight to the way that Jesus defined it. There's no part of the Christian community that is going to try to override what Jesus said. "Just as I have loved you" means unconditionally. It doesn't mean as long as they agree with you, have the same color skin as you, speak the same language as you or fit some specific stencil.
I realize this is a bit off-kilter for Hacker News but sermons that talk about how we are all sinners in need of forgiveness are there specifically for two reasons.
1. No matter what you have done, God will forgive you. No matter what you have done, God loves you.
2. Because God will forgive the worst of us who truly asks for forgiveness, we have no right to deny forgiveness to anyone who truly asks for it either.
I've visited a lot of different churches throughout the southeast in my life and I've never once heard a minister say anything that implies anything other than the above.
I grew up in one. They use words that mean one thing to everyone else but mean (via subtext) another thing entirely to the in-group.
That's why I specifically called out that kind of church; I thought I was careful about that. I've been in many churches that are amazing, wonderful places. But I've been to other churches (usually PCA) that can be downright evil.
Edit: this wasn't about skin color, but more LGBTQ/nonbelievers. They're a very different breed of bigot than Those Who Wear Sheets.
I guess "safe space" (quoted as a term under discussion) isn't really the right term here - but the student is the one who raised the issue of "victimization", which to my mind is really more what we're talking about than actual safe spaces as you defined them. So on this point, that might actually be good feedback to that professor, because I think struggling with the terminology in this particular topic is common.
One thing to realize ...is the context of love ...in many evangelical circles
As a conservative evangelical myself, your explanation of the Christian concept of love is somewhat confusing and contradictory to me. But putting that aside, I still don't see how this student felt "victimized", unless now any negative feeling or emotion makes one a victim. Feeling guilty for failing to live up to a standard is a negative feeling, but I don't think it makes one a victim (and if it does, then I think the word victim becomes utterly void of meaning).
One wonders if it was all in the professor's head? Or if it even happened? Where's the proof! Flip the conversation, just because the professor is claiming to be accused of saying something that made the student feel victimized doesn't mean it happened!
I'm coming from the direction of a) being genderqueer and b) having survived sexual assault. Safe places have been remarkable in giving me a place to discuss my feelings about gender without ridicule or hate. Trigger warnings have been pivotal in me recovering from being molested as a pre-teen.
I'm actively scared of coming out in the developer community, because of its deep rooted misogyny. But here I am :)
(edit: I love that I just got down-voted for coming out to the community as both queer and victim of sexual assault! Thanks for proving me right, HN.)
Do you really think that's why you were downvoted?
I can see that, in the context in a "safe space" with a fairly specific purpose as to who (either by specific individuals are shared identity around common potential trauma source) it is safe for.
The reality of trauma and triggering is that there are a wide variety of sources of trauma, and that each is associated with a wide variety of both obviously related potential triggers and less obviously related ones, so I think a problem comes about when either safe spaces or trigger warnings become overly generic -- and, particularly, when contexts that are not specifically-sheltered "safe spaces" become the focus of efforts for demands for trigger warnings around any possible source of trauma (or, in a different way, when they became the focus of efforts to demand "trigger warnings" favoring particular sources of trauma, without any particularly strong reason that source of trauma is relevant and needing to be favored in the particular space.)
Stop seeing the world through your victim-goggles. Just stop.
The basic "problem" from developer culture is that it is heavily rooted in systems logic, and frankly safe spaces as proposed and as advertised and as popularly understood are illogical.
Very simply, using your definition, the safe space both proclaims to allow discussion and then by its very definition excludes one side of that same discussion.
If the claim was "Hey, look, we just need a separate place where we don't fear bullying, violence, and microaggressions" that would be understandable and not a problem.
However, the claim is invariably appended with "And we can have useful discussions here, and no other place can have useful discussions, and we accept everyone--except these other people that we decide have badthink" and once that amendment is made it triggers the developer bullshit alarm.
newspace = makeSafe(space);
How would we test that this function is performing correctly?
There's a time and a place for that, to be sure, but there are many more cases in which the forceful imposition of a binary outlook has effects that are socially inhibiting, making it a serious impediment to free discussion and open development of ideas.
If a person cannot (or will not) recognize when taking a narrow and combative approach just makes them an asshole, then the "logical" response is to keep them far enough away to prevent their noxious manner from derailing otherwise productive exchanges.
Moreover, even attempts at polite discussion are often dismissed as sealioning or whatnot--and thus, by being hypersensitive and assuming a victim stance, truly productive and civil discourse is prevented.
Additionally, these spaces do not facilitate a "productive" exchange: we can wager that few really new ideas are being exchanged. Politely, it's a chance to reaffirm values and provide a sense of belonging and comfort. Impolitely, it's a circlejerk.
If people need a place to find comfort, that's great! To claim anything other than that, especially that it somehow is some setting for honest and fair discourse, is a misrepresentation.
For example, these "safe spaces" apparently are to protect against "micro-aggressions" (a term I only recently learned) which if I understand correctly means to "take offense where none was given" aka to put words into someone's mouth? So now it's not even what someone is saying but how someone in the audience might feel, because of their own personal history, indirectly because a word the speaker used. And this is the speaker's responsibility now that someone in the audience was made to feel this way because they were confronted with a disagreeing opinion?
I think this is where the accusations of mollycoddling come in. It sounds like these kids aren't ready for serious academic discourse. They're stuck in a world where there is only one "right" and they paint caractures of their racist and bigoted antagonists to support their view.
What I find noxious is warfangle's claim that we must all be sexist and bigots to raise questions around academic freedom and censorship in colleges / universities... I think this is a typical parlor trick to try to shut down productive discussion. Frankly I would have liked to see a rebuke from dang in response. Why is it ok to attack a group saying a viewpoint is "disgustingly indicative of the inherent sexism and flat-out hatred that worms its way through developer culture." All the same, I'll let warfangle speak for themself and I don't expect HN to be free from dissenting opinions or even vitriol. Because in an attempt to shut down a "narrow and combative approach" it's impossible not to have a chilling effect on the overall discussion. In your safe spaces you might be spared from some of the bad, but it comes at a significant cost to others around you who aren't triggered and are capable of having adult conversations on difficult topics.
Frankly I've been waiting for an article like this to hit the front page because I am very interested in seeing the varying perspectives and actually having a chance at productive conversation on HN, which you won't find in the comments anywhere else that's for sure!
Quite as it should be, the best "safe place" is the one we create for ourselves in our mind. I never imagined students would demand a real-world physical equivalent that somehow everyone else in the room is supposed to comply with.
Also, I hope you realize how silly you sound. "Safe Spaces" are supposed to be free from antagonizing rhetoric, violence, and judgement. Its not supposed to be safe from the emotional pain you feel when someone tells you that you might be wrong for the first time in your life, or that a college sorority girl dressing up as Mulan isn't culturally insensitive (especially in today's world where the lines that traditionally divide us are being constantly eroded by near instant communication and a sub 24 hour flight to anywhere on the globe), or that god forbid that racism is not exclusive to white people of Anglo-Saxon decent. College specifically is about challenging world views and teaching students first and fore most how to become citizens of the world. Its not for "safe spaces" where students are tucked into comfortable rooms with rounded corners and foam flooring to make sure they never hurt themselves.
Relevant reading:
https://popehat.com/2015/11/09/safe-spaces-as-shield-safe-sp...
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/how-camp...
http://www.gayalliance.org/programs/education-safezone/safez...
> There's a stark difference between a free and voluntary association of like-minded people and a so-called "safe space"
No, there defintionally is not... perhaps there seems to be a confusion over definitions.
The fact that people want to expand the rules governing a particular safe space into a large sphere doesn't change the definition of a safe space.
You can take offense with someone wanting to make a classroom into a safe space, but I really don't get why any non-authoritarian person would insist on not allowing safe spaces at all.
Also, I'd be surprised if OKWU faculty/students/alumni don't try doing the exact same thing (expanding the boundaries of their safe space) by voting for fundamentalist christian politicians who enforce christian morality on women who use birth control, homosexuals, people who consume alcohol, etc.
> ...which uses a pretext of "victimization" to capriciously thought control others who simply committed the offense of disagreeing or criticizing.
What, like kicking someone out of a university when they realize half way through a difficult-to-transfer course of study that they're gay? Or that they enjoy square dancing?
The harm that fundie universities like OKWU have done to students who disagree ever so slightly with their idiotic version of religion is demonstrable and significant. Your argument that students somehow "should have known better" is, IMO, fundamentally misinformed.
> And this is evidence of what, exactly?
That OKWU is a safe space and that safe spaces have always existed, but they usually function to shelter people who are aligned with popular opinion / cultural norms. You know, like social norms (e.g., not employing publicly out gay people, looking the other way when transvestites are assaulted, etc.) protecting homophobes from having to knowingly interact with the icky gay people.
OKWU is a safe space for people who don't want to have to interact with anyone who does not subscribe to their particular brand of nutty American puritan christianity. It's a place where people can be openly homophobic and openly judge other people's sexual morality without being socially ostracized like they would be in the real world.
Just in case my opinion isn't clear by now: Everett Piper is a massive hypocrite who runs a religious commune with strict codes of conduct while also appealing to liberal values. He doesn't actually give a shit about free speech or dissenting opinions. It's impossible to take someone seriously when they claim universities aren't safe spaces while also expelling people for disagreeing with a very particular and very whacky form of christianity.
The difference is that OKWU markets itself as a Christian university; its stated vision is "to provide a thorough and sound education within a Christian philosophy of life" and education "in the light of Christian principles." Its student handbook clearly lists tobacco, drugs, alcohol, porn, and premarital sex as unacceptable.
It should not be any surprise that if you are found to be engaging in any of those activities--which you and I may think are fine, but OKWU clearly does not--you will be disciplined and perhaps even kicked out. OKWU could not be more clear on this point.
In contrast, Yale and many other universities claim to embrace free expression. Yale informs incoming students: "Yale’s commitment to freedom of expression means that when you agree to matriculate, you join a community where “the provocative, the disturbing, and the unorthodox” must be tolerated. When you encounter people who think differently than you do, you will be expected to honor their free expression, even when what they have to say seems wrong or offensive to you." http://yalecollege.yale.edu/new-students/class-2019/academic...
So OKWU may be many things, but it is not hypocritical. If Yale and these other schools do not live up to their own freedom of expression promises, they are.
Well it's an evangelical college. It is what it says on the tin. They disapprove of certain behaviors they consider immoral, but if you don't know that going in, you didn't do your research.
The pervasive whining being addressed in the article is spot on and was recently addressed in another HN posting: http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/11/24/the-yale-problem-begi...
There is a large segment of society that assumes that any alternate point of view, irrespective of how it's presented, must be an attack against them. This is akin to chastising someone warning people not to pick up the active business-end of an arc-welder.
What the original poster intended you never know...
Isn't this the essence of religion after all?
It's like that you don't know what were the real intentions of the OP who is unavailable and can't be reached and you're just left with vague texts and conflicting interpretations and re-interpretations making you feeling completely confused and lost.
Hyperbole?
> We can deal with the Christians
I don't want to deal with the Christians. I don't agree with their worldview most of the time, but the don't need to be dealt with.
> once we sort out the safe spacers
They are the safe spacers, just by a different name. Also, I think safe spaces are fine and they don't need sorted out.
I was just making an observation on his hypocrisy and that safe spaces are not just for left-leaning people. He has cultivated a safe space for Christians and is bemoaning safe spaces for potential non-Christians.
(This addresses only the first part of your comment.)
I don't think it's possible to measure insecurity and I don't think it's necessary to measure it. With enough life experience you can detect insecurity in an adult by the the things they say and their reactions to certain events.
If a group wants to acquire private property and start a club or meeting where they gather to share like-minded ideas and be away from dissent, that is acceptable. The place for "safe spaces" away from intellectual challenge is NOT the square of a university campus.
Obviously there are shades of gray depending on the particular speech, and we've collectively drawn a line around certain speech (call it "hate speech") which we do believe should be censored. Otherwise, the correct response to speech you don't agree with is more speech ideally in the form of reasoned and well-informed debate of the issues.
What I find the most perplexing is how, in many cases it seems like the original speech which was deemed offensive or victimizing, which typically itself was not even directed at the "victim", is answered in return with extreme prejudice and hate directly aimed at the original speaker. This can also be combined with a social media campaign to attempt to politicize the whole event and inflict maximum damage. This is why I am often confused as to who is the real victim in these cases.
The ad blocker analogy is interesting. Even blocking ads is somewhat contentious (e.g. lawsuits against DVRs with 30-second skip buttons, site owners saying their revenue stream has been decimated, etc.) and this is simply users controlling what their own devices are doing! Blocking an ad might deprive a site of revenue, but it doesn't deprive anyone else of their voice -- no one is being censored.
You say we surely allow people to shovel words into our brains... Hearing speech you don't like is one thing, but what about someone else taking their own inability to function in a diverse culture, and using it to dictate the words anyone who happens to be around them are allowed to speak? This sounds like a case where the medicine is worse than the disease.
The biggest problem with "safe spaces" is that they are not actually limited to small rooms in the student union with play-dough and elevator music, but I think a lot of people are very concerned that the intent is ultimately for the entire campus to be policed like one. And I do mean policed, because stepping afoul of the mythical safe space code of conduct is taken as a capital offense, to which you may see literal rioting in response.
There's a lot to unpack in your comment, but I want to focus on the above. I believe you do have a right to filter your input, and indeed, we can do and MUST filter it because there is so much of it. Certainly my right to speak should not trump your right to not have to be listen.
I think that the galling part about the safe space thing is that people are going to places which are designed to be not safe (in that sense) and then demanding everyone stop doing what they came there to do. It's like walking into a bar and proclaiming "I'm an alcoholic and you're all harming me by drinking in front of me!" That's stupid. But I, for one, don't want the stupidity of a few to somehow lead to a world where I'm forced to listen when I don't want to.
The basic protocol requires an accurate summary of the topic and the sentiment from the initiator, and a single bit from the target.
BTW this is essentially how Mormon missionaries do it ("Do you want to hear about my views on Jesus (positive)? Y/N", and I think it's great.
And that seems maybe a bit silly.
My intention was to show that safe spaces exist in more ways than they are described and have been around for much much longer than the uproar of the last few years would lead one to believe, they have just not been run by left-leaning young people in universities.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/august-2015-ratings-fox-news-1-in...
The education was much more about "life-style management and shaping", than actual objective education. Basically, they told us that we can't "drink, smoke, etc", but then complained when we went and told them we were having any type of personal problems.
And you are free to get your education somewhere else.
By rights, they shouldn't even be entrusted with that responsibility really. I mean, Eve was pretty much answerable for the downfall of mankind.
Article Point: A student shouldn't complain because the content of the lecture hurts their "feelings". If they disagree, that is fine.
Your point: The college doesn't like certain acts being part of their community. The college doesn't like certain speech being part of their community. And it doesn't like it if you do not believe in the faith.
The two points are not related.
But isn't that expected? OKWU's institution is as an evangelical Christian university - http://www.okwu.edu/about/
If you did not want Christian indoc then why would you go to a christian evangelical school?
Distilled down, the school is saying that if a lesson on how we should selflessly love others makes you feel bad about yourself, the lesson you should take away is that you have some improvements to make in yourself -- not that you've been emotionally raped.
Also their mission statement:
As an evangelical Christian university of The Wesleyan Church, Oklahoma
Wesleyan University models a way of thought, a way of life, and a way of
faith. It is a place of serious study, honest questions, and critical
engagement, all in the context of a liberal arts community that honors the
Primacy of Jesus Christ, the Priority of Scripture, the Pursuit of Truth, and
the Practice of Wisdom.To wit:
Biology Major — Students will demonstrate the following outcomes, upon completion of the Biology degree offered by the School of Arts and Sciences:
1. A sound basic understanding of the chemistry of life.
2. A sound basic understanding of prokaryotic and eukaryotic cell structure and function.
3. A fundamental knowledge of Classical, Molecular, and Population genetics.
4. A sound basic understanding of the proposed mechanisms of evolution and understanding of Creation.
5. A sound basic understanding of the structure and function in plants and animals.
6. A sound basic understanding of ecology.
7. Integration of the Biblical Principles into life sciences.
Needless to say, I'm not surprised by the "framing" of Evolution and, essentially, equivocating its merit with, um, Biblical Creationism.
Perhaps they join the concepts because they know that the opponents of their faith often try to falsely imply that theories of evolution are proofs of atheism.
What then does "Integration of the Biblical Principles into life sciences" mean?
I'm under impression that such is also the official stance of the major "mainstream" churches today.
Isn't HackerNews just an extreme safe-space for SV programmers?
Ok ok ok. I'm not trying to say they're the exact same. But what I am saying in response to your post is... so? That all sounds fine and totally reasonable. I don't see a problem.
I am amused how in the past two weeks the word "safe space" has been weaponized by the liberal left. First they demanded safe spaces. Then they were laughed at on a national scale. Now they throw back "oh yeah... well YOU'RE a safe space so fuck you!". I've seen it in multiple contexts and expect to see it more.
Anybody who's been on HN for more than a month knows there is a set of topics that will trigger massive discussion threads, for which there is a generally accepted community opinion. If you go against those opinions, you will be downvoted. Go ahead: try saying that you're against the very idea of a basic income for all citizens in a BI thread.
The downvotes on the parent post are IMO a symptom of that. I'd defy anyone to tell me exactly which one of the rules at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html this his/her post is breaking, besides, perhaps "posting perennial flamewar topics." And, if you have to call this a flame war topic, I would suggest that actually proves my point.
I'm not going to hang out on algolia for an hour to dig up the post, but I'm 99% sure PG ended up endorsing downvotes-as-disagreement (or at least condoning it).
Being safe from criticism.
Because it's a reasonable argument to make. Saying "you can't take this from me and claim it is a bad thing when I do it but a good thing when you do it" is a perfectly fine way to respond.
(note: I don't actually mean fuck you. I'd like to think y'all can see what I did there.)
It's not like they are disguising that fact.
Well, a good solid Christian university isn't really a safe space; you should have a lot of theology and church history that you didn't know about taught - it will (should, heh) force a reexamination of what you claim you believe (as an aside, the summary is that the bog standard teachings from most churches only scratch the surface of what is actually there; reality is harder and more challenging than the milquetoast that is commonly taught).
That said, it's fair to say that if a 'feminist' university existed, going in and complaining that your male feelings were hurt should get you the same response, mutis mutandi. Like another posted stated: this university does what's on the tin. If you or your parents don't like it, you shouldn't attend.
Everyone attends this school voluntarily, so it's not like someone was hit in the face their first day with the fact that it's a Christian-based curriculum.
You see, they hate it so so much. Ugh, so icky.
Having said that, I fully admit there may be a few phrases that conservatives might be a bit sensitive to, but it would surely be a very short list.
Why do they call the lobbying for prevention of medical treatment for women, Pro-life?
Why can't they call the opposition party by their actual name?
...because the estate tax has the effect of being a tax on dying.
Why do they call the lobbying for prevention of medical treatment for women, Pro-life?
Because we think elective abortions (almost all abortions are elective) are not medical treatment, but rather a barbaric practice in which one person is killed for the convenience of the other, and in most cases is harmful in the long-term to the survivor as well. I feel strongly about this, but I'm not upset by people who want to call me "anti-abortion", because I am.
Why can't they call the opposition party by their actual name?
Uh....what? Do you mean "the Democratic Party" as opposed to the "Democrat Party"? I think that one is better chalked up to colloquial speech, regardless of what the Wikipedia article says.
But like I said - being a lifelong Republican and conservative activist, I know exactly zero people who would be upset if you didn't say "death tax", "pro-life", or "Democrat Party" (or PPACA instead of ObamaCare).
... because controlling women is what Republicans want to do. You have to go into very modern religious nonsense to come up with an idea that a fetus is a person, and you've decided that politicians should have more say over a woman's health than her doctor.
... because you hate the idea that a political party could seem "democratic."
Sorry, but peddle that hilarious dishonesty elsewhere. It might fly in Texas, but it makes no actual sense.
2. There is blaring, obvious religious justification for considering conception to be the beginning of life, and it has a high degree of consistency in logic and basic medical observation. Arguing that life begins at some other (arbitrary) point is a loser's game, my friend, and it comes right out of a post-modern nihilistic nonsense. Being anti-abortion has everything to do with protecting the rights of the child because that child is a person, and nothing whatsoever to do with controlling women, except to the extent it's required to protect the life of the child.
3. Because....what? If that's not manufactured outrage, then I don't know what is. Seriously. I think it's highly likely that most people refer to the Democratic party as the Democrat party because "democrat" is the noun that the adjective "democratic" comes from, and is the grammatically proper way to refer to someone who is a member of the Democratic party (as a "democrat").
All of this really kind of proves my point, I think: I nor any conservative that I know are upset that you don't describe things using our preferred terminology, but you seem to be upset (accusing me of dishonesty seems pretty upset to me) that I decline to use yours. Seems like a one-way street to me.
Let's not use HN as a place to destroy religion -- there's plenty of other venues for that.
I think smart is the application of intelligence, and while intelligent, the religious are not "smart" in that area.
I mean, I try not to be, but let's be honest—I wouldn't know if I was.
Perhaps, although maybe in my social bubble in London, Christians just aren't all that common, smart or otherwise. My last interaction with a Christian was my ex-neighbours. Lovely friendly family, or so we thought until we saw & heard them carrying out exorcisms on terrified, screaming children in their kitchen. I called the police.
I don't think all Christians are like that either. My grandma was a Catholic, and one of the most selfless people I have ever known.
Most of the monotheistic religions seem to me a little like still believing in Father Christmas, and the same "get em while they're young" method of indoctrination is often used. If I meet someone who is religious, in my head I'm thinking about the practicalities and (how does such a fat man get down the chimney? How does he know which children have been naughty and which have been nice? And how does he get through all those houses in one night?).
And I'm not prejudiced. Pointing out gaping inconsistencies in someone else's argument or belief system goes not constitute prejudice. I totally support people believing in whatever they want to believe as long as it doesn't impact on others right to do the same. My personal belief is that Father Christmas does not exist, and any grown-up believing that he does is fucking ridiculous.
I do like mince pies though.
Isn't this just an extreme safe-space for Christianity? It's exactly what they're arguing against, but backs up their worldview so it's not an issue.
It's honestly baffling because I am sure there are hundreds of very smart people there who must realize this, including the professors and administration.